Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 18, 2020 - American Countdown - Barnes

01:47:04

20200518_Mon_Barnes

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Welcome to American Countdown, Monday, May 18, 2020.
	Day 60 to day 90, depending on where you are in the world of a lockdown or shutdown of some level, increasing in certain parts of the United States, even as the virus itself continues to shrink as a meaningful threat.
	to most people in the population, while those most vulnerable have turned out to be the ones that have been the most often the victims of these public policies.
	More increasing evidence indeed that, in fact, the public shutdown has led to more deaths rather than fewer.
	And yet some of our politicians are from coast to coast continue to implement them.
	We'll get into that and later.
	Tonight we'll be discussing, particularly in the bottom half of the show, whether or not Bill Gates wants to chip the world and whether he's using the pandemic as a pretext to achieve his objectives.
	We'll also be talking with Michael Malice, the author of what North Korea-style politics and policies look like as some of our governors and some politicians across the Western world implement some of its mindset or ideas.
	But first to the COVID-19 daily update.
	We look at chart number three.
	We see someone has looked at the actual loss of life expectancy, the way insurance companies measure actuarial tables and the like, and compared it to a bad flu season versus what we know to date about COVID-19.
	And if we look at chart number three, we'll find that, in fact, the total adjusted life years lost is very comparable between COVID-19 and a bad flu season with pneumonia hitting a high level.
	We see the estimated total life years lost given where the virus is effective and impactful is not much different than a severe flu season.
	In fact, additional data along the same lines continues to also show, if we look at chart number four, that the states that shut down the most are the states that have experienced the worst degree of deaths per capita.
	Indeed, social distancing appears to have no correlation with reducing the death rates.
	In group one, we look at those states that had the longest and most extensive state order.
	They have 32 deaths per 100,000 people.
	In Group 2, we have people that shut down less.
	They only had 20 deaths per 100,000.
	Group 3, on average, only shut down for 40 days.
	They have only 16 deaths per 100,000 population.
	In Group 4, people who shut down a month or less, it drops again to 8 deaths.
	per 100,000.
	And Group 5, those states that never shut down in the United States, includes Arkansas, Iowa, Nebraska, both Dakotas, Utah, and Wyoming, they have the lowest death rate, five deaths per 100,000.
	So the more a place shut down, the more its death rate increased, not decreased.
	Indeed, the same person who did this study went back and showed that this could not be explained by having a bigger outbreak prior to their state shutting down, because the death rate grew more in those places post shutdown than it did in the places without a shutdown. - Yeah.
	If we look at other key metrics since April 1st and looking at New York, we see the death rate has dramatically continued to dramatically decline and it began its decline when people prior to when they could have been infected prior to the shutdown.
	So the shutdown in the hospitalizations completely dropped off a chart.
	The death rate completely dropped off the chart.
	The number of people reporting positive in response to tests completely dropped off the chart.
	So as this virus continues to decline in effectiveness, independent of any shutdown, what are people in New York doing?
	They're extending and expanding the shutdown.
	The mayor of New York telling people that he'll pull them out of the ocean or water from swimming if they just go swimming, an activity that increasingly everyone recognizes poses no meaningful risk of the virus spreading.
	Indeed, if we look at the four most populous states by the numbers in chart number six, see a comparison of California and New York and Texas and Florida.
	Texas minimized the scope of its shutdown.
	Florida did the same.
	And when we look at the actual chart data, we find that The California and Texas, of course, have higher state income taxes, bigger debt burdens despite that, and in terms of a death rate, the death rate is lowest in Texas and Florida, two states that had the smallest shutdown, whereas California and New York, the state with the longest shutdowns, have a much higher death rate, as well as being, of course, deeply in debt and having problems despite their income tax that they impose on the state.
	If we look at the share of deaths by nursing home in chart 7, we see how so many of the deaths, such as Pennsylvania, are 67% of the deaths come from nursing homes.
	Virginia, 60%.
	North Carolina, 61%.
	So we see these high death rates from a range of states coming from the nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
	The rate is only low in New York because they haven't been accurately reporting it from New York.
	And so we see again that the nursing homes, the most vulnerable location, was the one place they chose not to protect from this virus.
	Indeed, they increased the risk by sending people they knew had COVID-19 into the nursing homes without sufficient protective protocols to prevent the transmission of COVID-19.
	And then locked them in without them being able to go home to their parents or relatives or other family members or daughters or sons, as the case may be, or grandkids.
	That was not allowed, unless, of course, you were a connected politician like the Pennsylvania Health Commissioner.
	In the same time frame, when we look at what's happening economically, we have a quote, chart eight from Fed Chairman Powell, who talks about what they've been doing.
	He quote, someone he was asked, is it fair to say you simply flooded the system with money?
	Powell answered, yes, we did.
	That's another way to think about it.
	We did.
	And Pelley asked, well, where did it come from?
	Did you just print it?
	And Powell explained, we print it digitally.
	So as a central bank, we have the ability to create money digitally.
	And we do that by buying T-bills or bonds or other government guaranteed securities.
	And that actually increases the money supply.
	We also print actual currency and distribute that through the Federal Reserve Bank.
	So the Fed has been using the pandemic as a pretext to flood Wall Street and preferred political, those politically protected with a lot of, with huge infusions of cash, particularly some zombie corporations that continue to experience major problems.
	Meanwhile, we had sort of a fake kind of story or exaggerated another exaggerated COVID-19 story in the New York Times.
	And if we look at chart 10, we'll see the headline.
	There's been an attempt by the Washington Post, New York Times and the establishment press to connect a childhood disease to COVID-19.
	And so the headline is a bit misleading.
	It says straight up fire in his veins.
	Teen battles new COVID syndrome.
	And it talks about this teenager experiencing this horrible pain, and they try to connect it to COVID in the headline.
	But in fact, if you go further in and you go to the Telegraph's headline, it's actually an accurate headline from chart 9, and it says, children's disease may not be linked to coronavirus at all.
	So Alex Berenson has been covering this on Twitter and elsewhere.
	And so we see the actual, there's this fear tactic of, wow, COVID-19 is even coming for your kids.
	It's going to create this scary, frightening, terrifying disease.
	And then when they look into it, it turns out it may not have any connection whatsoever with COVID-19.
	Just another scare tactic being utilized by the establishment press.
	Now, some people have pushed back on this.
	So, for example, a sheriff used his Facebook page to say that he was not going to be enforcing the shelter-at-home orders in his county.
	And this was DuPage County in Illinois, where the governor is sort of off his rocker in terms of extending and expanding his power, threatening churches, threatening schools, threatening families, threatening individuals, while his own wife took a special trip to Florida during this time period.
	As James Mendrick, Sheriff, explained, quote, even though he's been threatened with his office having reimbursement funds, grant funds from the state, to force him to not talk about his views on the constitutionality and the legality of Governor Pritzker's orders, he said he is not going to do what Cook County is doing.
	He's not going to do what the other politicians are doing.
	He's not going to enforce orders that he sees as unconstitutional.
	In the same context, throughout the country, other parts of the country are experiencing expansive shutdowns.
	So we have increasing shutdowns in Connecticut, increasing shutdowns in New Jersey, increasing shutdowns in parts of New York, increasing shutdowns in Illinois and Michigan.
	Increasing shutdowns in California.
	Increasing shutdowns in Washington, where the governor is making a wide range of threats there as well to people, even though Washington has no serious outbreak and hasn't since the very beginning.
	It had an initial outbreak in a nursing home, then it fell off a cliff.
	All the predictions of doom and gloom turned out to be incorrect and false.
	But more and more law enforcement officers are pushing back against this.
	In fact, a sheriff in New Jersey did precisely that.
	Let's take a look at the video clip number seven where the sheriff shows up.
	They know he knows the gym is open.
	He knows that violates the shelter in place order.
	A nice Orwellian phrase for house arrest and explains that first he says, by the way, you're all in violation, but I hope you have a good day and leaves.
	Let's take a look at clip number seven.
	We are and we're only here for everybody's safety today.
	We plan for the worst, hope for the best, and it seems like that's what we have out here today.
	So boys, you are all in violation of the executive order.
	On that note, have a good day.
	May everybody be safe.
	Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.
	Bye.
	USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! Civil disobedience works again.
	People unwilling to abide by unconstitutional orders, challenging it and contesting it with direct action, and police officers' unwillingness to go along with unconstitutional orders, even in states like New Jersey.
	We've seen examples of that all across the country.
	Sheriffs in Michigan, sheriffs in Wisconsin, sheriffs in Texas, sheriffs in other places, the Attorney General in Texas demanding that the local governments comply with the Constitution.
	So we've seen pushback.
	Sheriffs in California refusing to go along with these unconstitutional orders.
	So more and more law enforcement, more and more police, more and more sheriffs are recognizing their first duty, their first obligation is to the Constitution and consequently enforcing that against the rogue orders of wayward politicians who are simply trying to exercise power in the guise of protecting against a pandemic.
	In the same context, we have people who continue to assert their protest and just beg for basic things, as has happened in America across the country.
	In this case, we take a look at video clip number nine.
	A woman simply begs that her nail salon be allowed to be open so she can economically survive.
	We're hurting.
	I have two kids.
	Let me open up.
	I will work, I will respect, I will clean up, sanitize everything, whatever.
	Please open up for New Salon!
	Open up!
	Open up! - We're hurting.
	We've had zero revenue for two months now. - Livermore was nothing before these businesses came in.
	And to let them sit here and fall to the wayside blindly is not okay with me or my family.
	And then we have people that are still living in fear, such as the folks who decided to use bumper tables as a way to keep customers six feet apart in Maryland.
	Take a look at video clip number eight.
	That's the new way you're going to walk around, apparently. . apparently. .
	Indeed, we have an infectious disease of Karenism spreading across the country.
	As people increasingly try to rat out other people, apparently there have been over 200,000 calls, even to 911, trying to snitch out one's neighbors, people in the park, people in the street, people just enjoying their lives themselves to try to prevent businesses from reopening.
	And there's a good response to that in explaining the craziness of Karenism that's taken over.
	Let's take a look at a clip from Paul Joseph Watson.
	Let's take a look at clip number... three.
	In the age of social distancing, the Karen meme is enjoying a massive resurgence.
	Karen, an annoying, interfering female adult who complains about everything.
	It's not social distancing.
	Okay, Karen.
	It's not social distancing.
	Who is it?
	With who?
	Stupid bitch, shut up!
	Shut up, bitch!
	Stupid bitch, shut up!
	That's not social distancing!
	That's not social distancing!
	She's literally sticking her arm out, putting herself closer to him.
	That's not social distancing!
	And yeah, I get the sanity of not congregating in huge groups of people.
	But this is two people, in a field, in the middle of nowhere.
	The dude on the bike is sticking to the path.
	He's the one travelling much faster.
	If you're that paranoid about Corona, Karen, move out of the friggin' way!
	Stupid bitch, shut up!
	Karens all over the world are milking the opportunity to inflict their petty enforcement of personal behaviour on other people.
	It's Corona time right now!
	It's Corona time!
	It's Corona time!
	Hey, if somebody wants a Corona!
	Okay, Karen.
	Also, imagine how cooked her boyfriend has to be to encourage this.
	Somebody wants the corona!
	Oh, somebody wants the corona!
	Yeah, and no doubt when you're getting pegged by your girlfriend, your face looks like this.
	Oh, somebody wants to strap on!
	It's not six foot when convenient, it's six foot at all times.
	Okay, Karen.
	Yesterday in the park, I saw a kid with a stick doing exactly the same thing with the approval of his mother.
	Karen.
	Oh, hey, Ted.
	Oh, hey, Marcus.
	How are you?
	Good.
	We out for a little run?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Just did seven.
	Might do another seven, you know?
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	I don't want to hold you up.
	Let's grab dinner sometime.
	I would love that.
	All right.
	You mean it.
	Good seeing you.
	Absolutely.
	I mean...
	911, what's your emergency?
	Uh, yeah.
	I got a couple handshakers right in front of me.
	Okay, sir.
	Are they still in the vicinity?
	Yeah.
	I'm staring at them right now.
	Run.
	I asked her to wear a fucking mask!
	Like, seriously, woman!
	This is the sort of insanity that is consuming large parts of American society, and this sort of Karenism disease that has infected parts of the country as well.
	And as no lesser source than Kanye West reminds us, it's this form of separation allows for more degrees of government and state control, and control by others other than independence and individual will.
	Let's take a look at video clip number 10.
	You know, this idea of holding on to a number one spot, You know, when you've lost the ideal of holding on to that concept you can leave the mountaintop finally and walk down and readjust and see what your position on earth can be.
	Now I understand that I'm a servant and with my voice And with the information and my ability to build relationships.
	With that, I have a responsibility to serve.
	You know, this concept of a selfish human.
	This idea of separation by race, or gender, or religion, or age, or... My favorite thing to hate?
	Class.
	A band of thinkers that could remove religion, race, gender, and politics, and somehow come together to find solutions for a broken planet.
	We have the resources and the civilization to find it in Tokyo, but we're led by the most greedy, the least noted, You guys are being taught, without you knowing it, ways to separate yourselves from each other.
	If you're separated, you should be easily controlled.
	This humanity that I talk about, this civilization that I talk about, this future utopia idea that I talk about, can only happen through collaboration.
	You know, ideas are free.
	And you can't be selfish.
	People ask me, you know, how my daughter is doing.
	She's only doing good if your daughter's doing good.
	We're all one family.
	Indeed, just as separation allows more control, fear is the key to the state and institutional forms of control as fear continues to be the real enemy.
	And there's more and more scholars, more and more scientists, coming out against these shutdown policies and politics as they see the harm happening to civil societies.
	They can put it in the context of other facts and the context of history.
	Let's take a look at clip number five.
	As another professor points out, the problem is the fear itself, not the COVID-19.
	It's a real chance the pandemic might burn out naturally.
	What did you mean by that?
	If you look at the history of pandemics from the Black Death through to the plague, through to more modern SARS and MERS that we've all experienced in our lifetime, They die out when people say they've died out.
	Of course we're living with SARS and MERS, but we're not concerned about them.
	I feel the same thing will happen to the coronavirus.
	We will no longer be concerned.
	At the moment, we're consumed with it.
	The news is consumed with it.
	We're obsessed with body counts.
	Many of the people that have died, sadly, would have died anyway at exactly the same time.
	We're really quite taken in by the situation of the virus and different countries have assumed different ways to police their people.
	Here, it's very British.
	It's a persuasive matter.
	In some countries, military police states, it's strictly enforced and woe betide you if you break the isolation rules.
	It is a fascinating way in which medicine, infection, the virus, impinge on our freedoms as a society.
	So there's the kind of, I guess, more social aspect of that.
	But on the medical side, what sort of evidence or what, how should we think about a virus dying out?
	I mean, in a sense, the policy is predicated on the presumption that if we stop with the social restrictions, it will come back and there'll be a big second spike and so on.
	Do you think that's a questionable assumption? - No, it's a valid assumption.
	We've heard a lot about the magic R0 number, which I last heard as a medical student 50 years ago.
	And now everybody can talk about, my kids talk about R0 to me.
	I mean, I've never seen anything like this.
	And there's no doubt that if the R0 goes up, the chances are the new infection rate will go up.
	But something's happened over just the last two weeks.
	The infection rate is going down, but the hospitalizations certainly in the UK have gone right down, and the deaths have gone right down.
	I mean, there's lots of little blips in it because of the way the data are counted.
	But there's no doubt things are getting better all over the world.
	Europe is opening up now.
	Austria, the first country to open up on the 14th of April, has had no second wave, no blip in increase, no problems epidemiologically with what's happened.
	The restaurants and cafes are beginning to open in Italy today and hopefully there'll be no change.
	But we're all scared and you know the political pressure on the school teachers, on governments to try and sort out should children go back is one of the big discussion points this week.
	My point of view is we've got to end the pandemic and we've got to end the psychology of fear that we've built up for this pandemic.
	People have to be responsible for their own actions and as we move forward I think that's what we're going to see.
	Do you think there's a chance that as we gradually release restrictions, we don't see a second spike and we can actually return not to some sort of new normal, where we continue social distancing in perpetuity, but actually just the old normal?
	I hope so.
	I really hope so.
	And when you look at second waves,
	WHO and in fact our NHS in Britain have predicted a second wave for September and then whatever we do and then after that we get what's called winter pressures which is the code for old people flooding hospitals with chest infections and it happens every winter since I've been a doctor and there's no doubt that the combination of a second wave, a significant second wave and winter pressures could completely flood the NHS again.
	It didn't get flooded in April when it was supposed to.
	It managed to cope really well.
	The Nightingale hospitals were left essentially empty.
	They opened the one in London just as a token to show it could be done.
	A few patients were treated there, but it certainly wasn't a necessary implementation.
	As we move forward, it's clear that if there's no rise in the cases as the R0 comes up to 1, They may never come.
	And viruses change.
	It's as though the virus is getting bored.
	I mean, how can a virus get bored?
	It's the tiniest form of life.
	You could even question whether it's alive or not, if you're a philosopher.
	But there's no doubt the problem we've got is fear.
	Fear of what could happen.
	Fear to protect healthcare systems.
	Fear that could actually kill more people.
	Because people, my specialty, cancer, are just not coming forward.
	The cancer patients have disappeared from April and it looks as though they're still keeping away in May.
	We've got to get them back.
	It's not just the patients fault, it's the system unable to do the diagnostic procedures to label them as having cancer.
	Indeed, fear is the real enemy.
	As another prominent history professor from the UK explained, this doesn't compare to the plague at all.
	We didn't even do this during the plague, and it's a disproportionate response, fear-driven response, that is not a policy-sound approach.
	Let's take a look at video clip two, part one.
	We've committed economic suicide.
	And I think it's really very important to be quite clear.
	We talk about it as the Covid-19 crisis.
	It's not.
	It's a specific political crisis which, bizarrely, everybody seems to have got themselves into, starting with the Chinese.
	In other words, it's an extraordinary version of the emperor's new clothes.
	Because what we need to understand, Peter, is there is enormously long history Epidemics, pandemics, incidences of local disease, incidences of disease transferring themselves from one community to another.
	One of the famous examples is when venereal disease was transferred from Latin America to Europe.
	with the Spanish conquerors.
	It was the revenge of the conquered people.
	And syphilis at the beginning of the 16th century was the most horrible disease.
	The king of France, his nose falls off.
	You know, the whole of this horror.
	But what is peculiar about COVID-19 is it's not actually a very serious disease.
	If you look at the numbers affected in Britain that we have been putting this, you know, immense passion about.
	Boris, you know, practically wearing sackcloth and ashes, you know.
	He's right, of course, each death is terrible for those involved, but it's 40,000 deaths.
	That out of a population of 60 million is an infinite percentage.
	If you go back to a real pandemic, if we go back to the Black Death of the middle of the 14th century, you're looking there at a first impact.
	when it hit England, of about 20 to 25 percent of the population, with repeated returns, so that by the end of the 14th century, the population of England is half what it was at the beginning.
	What is unique, in other words, about this pandemic is, apart from the fact it's rather small, is that the damage that it does is self-inflicted.
	Earlier plagues did inflict enormous economic damage.
	Curiously, the Black Death did not inflict economic damage.
	Indeed, that's because they did not respond with mass shutdowns.
	As this article details, the ban on elective procedures at hospitals and in diagnostic treatment as well, to diagnose serious diseases, is killing far more people than COVID-19.
	The article goes in detail about how the accumulated deaths correlate and correspond to the lack of elective medical care procedures.
	At the same time, increasingly, there's a recognition, as even the U.S. health secretary recognizes, there's been no spoke, no spike in covid-19 in the places that have reopened, as we saw is the case in Europe as well.
	Meanwhile, the Mayo Clinic expects to lose nine hundred million dollars in revenue this year from the loss of elective procedures.
	Meanwhile, those professors who challenged the pandemic policy response, such as Professor Witkowski, has now been banned by YouTube, as others have equally been banned from the gated institutional narrative.
	Meanwhile, additional studies show that COVID-19's staggering number of extra deaths in a community is not explained by COVID-19, but may be due to the response to it.
	When we come back, we'll have Michael Malice, the author of Dear Reader, the author of The New Right, who went into detail about some of what statism does and how it can infect us, and whether North Korea-style policies and politics is a wise idea in the modern age of pandemic panic.
	We'll be right back with Michael after the break.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	Our guest tonight is the inimitable Michael Malice, author of Dear Reader, the expose about North Korean life that some of our Democratic governors seem to want to replicate in part these days with some of their pandemic policies.
	Also, the author of The New Right has a great podcast called Nightshade and a great Twitter feed that is both fun and iconic at the same time.
	Michael, glad you could be with us.
	Thanks so much, glad to be here.
	Could you remind people, in your book Dear Reader, you go into detail about what North Korean life is really like.
	Could you remind people what statism looks like in the North Korean form?
	Well, the great Russian author Ayn Rand testified in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s, and one of the points she made is It's to paraphrase her, it's almost impossible to convey to a free society what it's like to not be free.
	You can give them details, as she said.
	You can try to paint a picture, but they will never truly understand it in a way.
	It's good that you don't understand what it's like to live in a status society, as she put it.
	Imagine what it's like when you're living in terror from the time you wake up to the time you go to bed and at night you're waiting for the door to doorbell to ring where anyone can do anything to anyone and you know it where human life means nothing.
	So I'm going to push back a little bit.
	We've got a long way to go before we get there in the United States.
	But unfortunately that is the situation right now for the 22 million North Korean people.
	Could you describe what life is like right now day to day in North Korea?
	I think it would be very hard for me to describe because North Korea is a very hierarchical country, right?
	So they divide everyone in the population according to what they call their sungban, which is a caste system, which means you're either part of the favored caste, the wavering caste, or the disloyal caste.
	This determines everything about your life, including where you live.
	The hostile caste is the lowest.
	So people in the hostile caste, for example, aren't even allowed to step foot in Pyongyang.
	I've been there, it's the capital city of North Korea, and I've met refugees who had to ask me, what's it like?
	Is it as beautiful as they say?
	No, it is not as beautiful as they say.
	So your day-to-day life will be determined from the moment you're born, And every aspect of your life will be very different.
	If you live in Pyongyang, cosmopolitan, citizen of the world, dress nice, have money, you're important.
	You know you're important because you live in Pyongyang.
	If you live in some of these other cities, it'll be very, very difficult indeed.
	And the problem is when you are the most vulnerable population in any nation, but especially in a country as degenerate, I would say, as North Korea, the vagaries of your day-to-day life could change drastically.
	It could go to one extreme as in the 90s when they had a famine, which one to two million people were starved to death by their own government, a genocide during our lifetime, or many of our lifetimes.
	Or it could be, eh, we're not clean, but we have some food and we get by.
	So that is an enormous disparity at the very bottom.
	At the very top, things are a bit more stable, but it's kind of describing what's life like for a typical American.
	You know, you could be someone from Wyoming, Hawaii, New York, LA.
	Unfortunately now, it seems that there is actually a bigger consensus as to what life is like for a typical American.
	You stay home and you lock the door.
	Right, exactly.
	What's been your response to all of these policy proposals and some of what's happening in California and other places in terms of this sort of statism infection that seems to have affected some of our politicians?
	Yeah, I'm gonna have to get a little personal on this issue.
	I've lived in New York City all my life, in Brooklyn specifically.
	And to walk, I remember 9-11 very vividly, as do all New Yorkers, of course.
	And it was, and Hurricane Sandy, when Manhattan had a blackout, and you know, there was this devastating hurricane that shut down the subway.
	It was never like this.
	In all, in both of those situations, people were in the streets.
	We had this sense of community.
	When you made eye contact with people, you'd be like, alright, we're going through the same thing as New Yorkers.
	There would be tourists.
	Things were bad, but there was this semblance that we were still in New York.
	So to walk around streets, I still go to the studio four days a week, and to see no one, and to walk around Brooklyn sometimes, I went to the park a couple months ago, and no one was on the streets and none of the lights were on.
	All you could do is wonder, where did everyone go?
	So it was like a movie, you know, like I'm Legend or some of these other films, 12 Monkeys.
	It was very, very disturbing to see as a New Yorker.
	And I, however, I do have some good news.
	There's a neighborhood here called Williamsburg.
	Some of your viewers might know it.
	It's like kind of the former hipster capital of Brooklyn.
	I was there very, it's not particularly Republican area, to put it mildly.
	I was there over the weekend.
	Half the people there weren't wearing masks at all.
	So it's at a point where, and I don't think they're particularly politically involved or politically informed, but it was at a point where everyone's looking around and being like, this is ridiculous, right?
	We're not doing this anymore, because there's no point.
	And I think a lot of civil, quote unquote, disobedience or standing up to authority doesn't necessarily come from an informed place or come from a place of principle, so much as a case of, why am I doing this?
	I just want to live my life.
	And can you explain, like, people ask me why there isn't more resistance in a place like North Korea.
	Can you explain why that is so difficult to occur there?
	Oh yeah, so I'll point out to everyone listening to this that your Twitter friend and your Facebook friend doesn't really understand North Korea, and it's perfectly okay to say, I don't know.
	That's fine.
	One of the problems with democracy is this claim that everyone has to have an opinion on everything, right?
	And one of the stupidest tweets I ever see is, why don't they just revolt?
	Yeah, just revolt.
	I mean, sure, the government has nukes, just revolt.
	North Korea is a surveillance society.
	And everyone in North Korea has a, is slotted into some group.
	It could be your school.
	It could be your neighborhood.
	It could be the factory where you work.
	And once a week they get together for what they call criticism and self-criticism sessions.
	And that means, and this is everyone in the country.
	It's almost impossible for us to wrap our heads around this.
	Like I said earlier, everyone has to get up and say, this is what I did wrong this week.
	I handed in my homework late.
	I, you know, I spoke back to my mom, maybe.
	Then, you have to have something to say about somebody else.
	I saw Robert sleeping in class.
	Or, you know, I saw this.
	So you have a country where, by law, literally everyone is spying on everyone and reporting their spying on everyone all the time.
	So, the idea that four people, even four, are going to get together and plot against the government when I'm going to, as my job, I want to be at the top.
	I want to make nice with the power elites, because if not, I want to live in the city.
	I don't want to be, you know, starving.
	I'll be like, hey, look, I saw Robert and three other people talking.
	I don't know what they were talking about, but it sure looked off.
	And then, Robert, it's not that there's a presumption of innocence.
	Now you have to sit down We may have lost him momentarily.
	Like, oh, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	And you can't be too crafty about it because then it's going to make you look even worse.
	So, again, this is a nation where there's no rule of law, where there's no due process or things like that.
	In many senses, they've managed to outdo Stalin because even Stalin.
	We may have lost him momentarily.
	Are you back?
	This idea that you have to have a trial to demonstrate the person's guilt, even though these trials were often farcical and ridiculous.
	Basically, they've institutionalized Karenism to a whole different level.
	What's been... Go ahead.
	Yeah, no, no, that's a funny way of putting it, but it's... Once you're there, I gotta tell you, and it's very disturbing to see it made manifest.
	Because it's funny to think about as like, okay, this is a ridiculous absurdity, which it is.
	And, you know, when I wrote the book, I made it to be farcical.
	But then when you see it, and you're like, these people have been living this for 70 years, it really does a number on you.
	Yeah, it's a form of psychological torture, constant, daily, every day, forcing an inquisitional confessional on individuals from the time they're knee-high to a grasshopper, as they say in Tennessee.
	Absolutely.
	Have you been surprised at this encouragement of a snitching culture by both the mayor of New York City and the mayor of L.A., in terms of them coming out and saying, please snitch on your neighbor if they're doing anything that's against my most recent executive order?
	No, and I think you are seeing the worst people getting licensed to act in the worst possible ways.
	I'll give you one example.
	I was on the subway going into the city, and I put this on my Instagram, and there was a young man, Asian, westernized, he wasn't, you know, dressed in particularly immigrant clothing.
	An older man got up, stood over him, screamed at him on the subway.
	Why don't you have a mask?
	Go back where you came from.
	He used those words.
	Like, you shouldn't be here, blah, blah, blah.
	And I'm thinking, first of all, let's suppose this guy has a disease or is radioactive.
	Why are you coming close to him, right?
	If he's this terrible, walk away.
	And there's a lot of the authoritarian impulse.
	You know, people ask how many of these countries have been Stalinism, Hitlerism, We forget, those of us who are fans of freedom and fans of individualism, how many people are eager.
	Essentially eager to capture authoritarianism.
	There's a deep authoritarian streak within part of the population, within part of civil society, that is being unleashed by aspects, by politicians, that is sort of a disease, a sort of Chinese authoritarianism, a disease of which we reflected in its worst form.
	In North Korea, North Korea is the most dangerous and precarious form of what happens when is statism on steroids.
	That's the way in which it gets the worst case in place it can be.
	And people like Michael are living it live time in a place like New York City.
	Do we have you back?
	Almost.
	Do we have you back, Michael?
	Sorry, guys.
	Hey, no problem.
	The wonders of technology.
	There's all kinds.
	Now, these days, they want to use technology for surveillance purposes.
	How much does North Korea use?
	You mentioned it's a mass surveillance society.
	Does it mostly rely on internal informants, or does it also incorporate technological tools to achieve that?
	Well, North Korea has a problem just having basic electricity, so it is far more involved on having the populace act as enforcers of the state.
	But technology is what's winning the battle in North Korea.
	Let me give you an example.
	It is illegal in that country to...
	Can you scroll back to that picture?
	I think I might recognize that person.
	I'm not even kidding.
	No, I don't.
	Sorry.
	What they would do is they would watch DVDs together, right?
	So if you have a DVD from another country, this is really a crime in North Korea.
	So what the police would do is they would turn off the electricity to someone's house, then knock on the door, and that way you can't get the DVD out of the DVD players.
	They're caught red-handed.
	Now, they have memory sticks.
	It's a lot easier to pull that memory stick out when there's a knock at the door than that DVD out of the DVD player.
	And that technology, which is very hard to trace, I mean, the amount of information you could have on a memory stick is, I think, all of Wikipedia, quite easily, is really an enormous thorn in the side of any establishment That is trying to present one point of view as some sort of absolute ideological truth.
	Yeah, you've been big on a wide range of topics, whether it's North Korea to the new right, in terms of breaking down the gated institutional narrative about who and what these people and places are.
	I've been impressed by the ability of the media and big tech to try to cabin and control the pandemic narrative in particular.
	What's your take on that?
	I think I agree with you in the very short term.
	But when this ends, and it's starting to end, even Italy opened up today.
	Italy was the country that was hardest hit in all of Europe.
	There is going to be a reckoning.
	And very quickly, what we had to go through is going to go away.
	And the consequences are going to remain Especially the economic consequences, right?
	And people are going to start asking questions.
	Why did we go through all this?
	Why were we told, Robert, you remember this and everyone listening to this remember this, we were told explicitly That even under the best case scenario, all the hospitals would be overflowed and there would not be enough ventilators.
	We were told this.
	I believed it.
	And frankly, if that's a possible scenario, you really have to bend over backwards to make sure not one person dies because of not having a ventilator.
	That is something that is a real crisis.
	But that didn't end up happening.
	And there's going to be a question.
	Wait a minute.
	We are still in.
	I mean, New York is one of the restaurant capitals of the world.
	That means restaurant tours who are rich.
	And it also means servers, you know, and busboys who are at the lowest end of the economic scale.
	They're all getting hit.
	You have entire industries that by law are not being allowed to operate.
	It's not going to be that simple to just turn the key and start it back up.
	People are going to be asking questions.
	And frankly, one of the best things about our divisive political system is that people are going to be glad to gin up the division and be like, you made this happen.
	Explain yourself.
	Because there is going to be a lot of choices that were made, and those choices are going to have to be answered for.
	So, I can understand the overreaction in the short term, but the fact that still, to this day, there are people who are like, this needs to go on interminably, it's nonsensical to me.
	And to most people, I think.
	And what do you think about the whole Elon Musk red pill?
	It's been interesting watching all of that develop, watch the public reaction to it.
	What's your take on all that?
	So I'm very glad that people like Elon Musk and Rose McGowan is another one who are, these are not political figures.
	I mean, a lot of people like to engage in political tribalism, Republican versus Democrat.
	Elon Musk does not identify with either of those parties.
	I've never seen him speak about either politics at all.
	Rose McGowan, sure, she's a feminist and ostensibly a leftist and a Democrat.
	She is not particularly a partisan figure in the sense of some of these others.
	And you can see how Rose McGowan, Maybe she's got a screw loose, and so do we all.
	She was the face of the Me Too movement, but as soon as she started targeting people that they wanted to protect, they fired her and cast Alyssa Milano.
	How is Alyssa Milano the face of this movement all of a sudden?
	Because Alyssa Milano knows how to stick to the script.
	So when you see I'll remind all the viewers of Lisa Bloom, who was the attorney who just recently tweeted, it was Kathy Griffin's attorney, who Kathy Griffin later denounced, who recently tweeted out she believes Tara Reade, but is still going to vote for Biden, which is just something I could not wrap my head around, as opposed to, I believe Tara Reade and Biden should step down.
	That would make sense to me.
	She wrote a letter to Harvey Weinstein that was made public, where she suggested a strategy to, in the press, call Rose McGowan insane.
	And a pathological liar while trying to make nice with her on the background and trying to pay her off and get her directory gigs.
	So this is the kind of people we are working with.
	So when you see this is being done to Rose and when you see Elon who is again nonpartisan and he's advocating the red pill and when people start asking questions that is something that the corporate press cannot abide.
	I'm sure everyone listening this remembers If we didn't go into Syria tomorrow, there was going to be a genocide, and all the Kurds were going to be killed.
	This was going to be a holocaust in 2020.
	We were all told this.
	We didn't go into Syria, and they never mentioned the Kurds again.
	Remember the Dreamers?
	If we don't change the law tomorrow, we have to shut down the government.
	Those Dreamers have to have their legal rights preserved.
	Vanished.
	Children in concentration camps on the border.
	Remember this?
	You would think if there's a pandemic with an infectious disease and physical proximity, the first thing you have to do is get human beings out of concentration camps.
	My God, it'll spread like wildfire.
	We saw this happen in the Civil War on American soil when soldiers are packed tight.
	That's the best vector for disease to spread.
	We saw it in World War I with the Spanish flu, where people were in close proximity in boot camp and they all caught it.
	Where are these kids in these camps?
	No one's talking about them because it's very clear that these are being used for political purposes, just like Greta Thunberg.
	The only group that likes to use human shields more than Hamas is the corporate press.
	Yeah, no doubt about that whatsoever.
	And in that same context, as you watch what's happening civil liberties-wise in New York, where you have the mayor saying, you can't even politically protest me outside City Hall.
	What's your thoughts on that?
	I have to say that a lot of people on the right think the left is a monolith.
	That every Democrat's interchangeable and every Democrat's the same.
	And I will tell them, well, you like Trump, right?
	So that means you like Jeb and Mitt Romney.
	So to have Governor Cuomo Who is a hardcore partisan, lifelong partisan Democrat.
	He's gone against de Blasio in many ways.
	De Blasio was talking about having us locked in our houses.
	Cuomo said we're not going to have that.
	And Cuomo has spoken positively about President Trump.
	So de Blasio is really bad, especially by standards of the left.
	He'll be gone next year.
	And very often in New York, when you have these kind of reformist governors, whether it's like Mayor LaGuardia back in the day, Rudy Giuliani starting in the 90s, and then Bloomberg basically being his protege, something everyone seems to forget, they are sworn in not because people want to vote Republican.
	They're sworn in because people are desperate to react against what had been prior.
	And New York has been doing pretty well for a long time, but they're doing a great job trying to destroy that which is, which makes New York special and unique.
	Broadway's gone, the restaurants are gone, the crowds are gone, Times Square is gone.
	I mean, everything that draws people to New York, they are making sure doesn't happen.
	And to some extent, I think it's a, and I think most people, I think, it's a huge reaction.
	There was a result recently that says more like what, 25% of New Yorkers are testing positive.
	That number might even be higher.
	So what we're seeing is the fatality rate And this is, at this point, common knowledge, I believe.
	The fatality rate for this virus is much, much lower in terms of percentage than what we had been told and promised.
	And though it is awful that so many people are losing their lives, we have to be able to make economic decisions rationally because there's no scenario where if the economy is opened again, no one else is going to die.
	That is literally not possible.
	And how well do you think New York ultimately will bounce back from this, both short term and long term, both in terms of mindset and in terms of everyday economy?
	Because I'm hearing some restaurants and businesses may never reopen.
	I am very, very concerned because I know I was with my friends over the weekend and they're all ready to move.
	I think there's a lot of New Yorkers who think, you know what, enough of this.
	Like, I've had it.
	Like, it's just more, and it's kind of like endangered species.
	Like, it's a little, a little, little, and then they're gone, right?
	So, yeah, you can tweak, and you can tweak, and you can tweak, but at a certain point, you're going to cause, if not a collapse, certainly an enormous change in the character, and I think for the worse.
	But I think the de Blasio types don't think that way.
	I think they think, this is New York!
	We could do whatever we want.
	New York's resilient.
	It'll bounce back.
	Listen, There have been many other great cities that are no longer the great cities that they were.
	Chicago, for a long time in my lifetime, was a rival to New York.
	Second City is a comedy troupe out of Chicago because it was regarded as the second city in America.
	No disrespect to Chicago, but it is not considered to be a rival to New York anymore.
	LA is.
	So I think these cities can be... Baltimore, my god, crown jewel of the Eastern Seaboard.
	Now it's a nothing.
	So These cities can only take so much before they lose their glory and I am very concerned that that's going to be the case.
	And do you think the same thing may happen in LA?
	When you have people like Joe Rogan, you've been on Joe's show a couple of times, is talking about moving.
	That's just not something that he would have talked about a couple of years ago.
	Do you think this will spread to other big cities where they're seeing the Democratic politics unmasked or authoritarian politics unmasked?
	Yeah, I think there are a lot of times in American history where some city which had been kind of neither here nor there becomes a city because so many creative people move there en masse because they're sick of established cities and being like, we're going to go here because these places can compete on price, they can compete on maybe weather, whatever it is, they'll have some advantage.
	And it draws young people there who are going to make their own scene and make that city a thing.
	And I think that given the rents, forget Corona, given the rents in San Francisco, the rents in New York and all the nonsense and the rigmarole, de Blasio was talking about us having composting in our own homes.
	I mean, is there any better way to attract roaches to your house than having literally rotting food in your own home?
	But this is the level of disconnect these kind of people behave with, where they just think every aspect of your life is subject to their whims.
	And if you don't like it, too bad.
	You wanted to live in New York.
	You knew what you signed up for.
	So I think there is a lot of overreach.
	And if Joe Rogan is saying that, I don't know how serious he is, because he has a family, of course.
	Um, but that is certainly a signal to other people to be like, you know what?
	Uh, we don't need this.
	You know, you're not in New York and we're having a show perfectly fine.
	So it's at a certain point, it's like, why am I putting up with this nonsense?
	So what about yourself?
	Do you think you'll stay in New York or are you looking at moving to greener pastures?
	Uh, I had always, I don't know how to drive.
	So that would be a big problem for me.
	I figure I can learn how to drive.
	I am a guy.
	But I gotta tell you, it is certainly becoming tempting.
	A lot will depend on this next election.
	Because if we get another... De Blasio's out of here next year, as I said.
	If we get another De Blasio type, and they're just making it worse and worse for the people who make New York special, and easier and easier for the people who make New York worse and more homogenous like every other city, that's gonna be a huge impetus for me to get my ass to somewhere else in this country.
	Where do you think you would go?
	That's what we were talking about over the weekend.
	The question is, what is the city that is inexpensive, that is up and coming, where we can make our own scene?
	And I don't know what that would be, but it sure as hell isn't going to be LA, I'll tell you that.
	We'll be right back with Michael, asking about the future of the presidential election as well.
	And we'll be right back with him.
	So come back with us after the break to see what Trump's prospects are in the era of pandemic politics.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	We're with Michael Malice.
	You can find his books in a wide range of places, including Amazon and other locations, like New Right and Dear Reader.
	Follow his podcast, Nightshade.
	You can also follow him at MichaelMalice.com and on Twitter, where he has one of the more engaging Twitter feeds, though many of the people following sometimes don't recognize what he's saying, which makes it even more comedic value to the equation.
	In this, you're mentioning that technology could help free North Korea in certain respects, because technology has always had this inherent divide between its power to empower the individual and its power to power the state against the individual.
	In this context, we're seeing big tech discriminate in a much wider range in terms of what they're allowing as a gatekeeper on Facebook or YouTube.
	What do you think that ultimately shakes out as in terms of empowering individuals or empowering centralized institutions in that ongoing battle for free thought and free speech?
	I am very, very hopeful about the future of this country, especially vis-a-vis free speech.
	Because when you have people like Elizabeth Warren discussing how this is unacceptable and Facebook does these things, it's very interesting how it plays out.
	The players are not how one would think.
	And there's an enormous asymmetry, and here is why.
	A murderer isn't killing someone 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
	If I kill someone once, I'm a murderer, right?
	Same thing with being honest.
	If I am dishonest in a big way, even once, that is really going to have someone look at me very differently, even though it's a small percentage of the things I say.
	So when you have Facebook, I know Candace Owens just today had her lawyer write them a letter.
	If you have Facebook disingenuously declaring articles to be fake, When they're, let's suppose, an opinion that someone doesn't agree with but can see as an opinion, that is a very dangerous warning label for them to put on for the sake of the Facebook brand.
	Because now it's like, okay, instead of saying this is fake, this is just telling me this is something Facebook doesn't want me to believe.
	And very quickly, the credibility and an organization, establishment organization like a Facebook or like an ABC would have goes by the wayside when the layman looks at this and being like, wait a minute, this isn't fake at all.
	I mean, here's an example.
	During the campaign when President Trump said, oh, Hillary Clinton bleached her server, Right?
	And they go, he didn't bleach it.
	She didn't bleach it.
	She used the program to scrub it clean.
	He's lying.
	And you look at that, you're like, I don't know what's wrong with you, but no one is perceiving President Trump or Donald Trump at the time thinking that Hillary Clinton took her server, got the Clorox out and poured bleach over it.
	So when you have these kind of gotcha games, then it becomes less about looking for truth and more about controlling what people can read and see.
	And when you have a genuine crisis like this coronavirus and are forbidding people to look at information that questions what we're supposed to do, when in an emergency, the very premise, which is very known, is let's all sit down, throw out any crazy idea we have just to get to something that might work.
	I mean, that's how brainstorming sessions operate.
	To have entire swaths of opinion being thrown out and being glad to be used that heavy hand in terms of this virus, that tells me a lot and tells most people a lot about how these corporations operate.
	Let's take it one step further.
	Whoever's the president is going to have the power to declare war, is going to have the power of the economy, taxation, economic policy, the budget.
	But war is a big one.
	If a president gets us into or out of war, that is going to cost more lives than the coronavirus crisis.
	Right.
	So if you are comfortable engaging in tipping the scales in terms of information, in terms of this crisis, well, surely it would logically make sense that when it comes to an election, you'll be more than happy to.
	And in fact, you consider yourself morally obligated in order to because now we're dealing with more lives in order of magnitude.
	Which is worse, coronavirus or nuclear war between nations, right?
	So if the president has the power to declare nukes, you better step in.
	That is the mindset.
	And when you realize that these actors, these agencies, Think of themselves in this way.
	A lot of people, regardless of where they stand politically, are going to be very, very uncomfortable.
	And those are the ones whose opinion matter.
	The average person doesn't care.
	They don't think about these things.
	They're just going to follow the crowd.
	So they're kind of irrelevant.
	But the people who are critical thinkers, regardless of their politics, are going to look at this and be like, whoa.
	I want to vote for who I want to vote for.
	I don't want to vote for the choices that Mark Zuckerberg has told me are the approved choices.
	So it becomes almost self-discrediting.
	In that same context, I was curious from your experience in North Korea, like in Cuba, I found a lot of people who did not believe the state at all anymore because of the way in which they tried to engage in this form of censorship or control.
	If tomorrow, North Korea, they were allowed to flee, How many of them do you think really believe in the state propaganda versus harbor serious doubt?
	It is very, very hard to determine because if they would let on to a foreigner, I mean, North Korea is the most nationalist country, most xenophobic country on earth, and proudly so.
	This is not words I'm ascribing to them.
	They boast about how they're racially pure.
	This is their worldview.
	If one of them let on to an American, Or to anyone, a fellow North Korean, that they're skeptical.
	As I talked before the break, that's the first thing that person would bring up that weekly meeting and say, over there, you know, Ji-lin told me she doesn't believe what the newspaper said.
	And North Korea, the great leader Kim Il-sung, the founder of North Korea, said class enemies must be exterminated three generations.
	So in North Korea, your entire family's punished.
	So you are not Going to be expressing skepticism to anyone other than the most trusted people.
	And even then, they may have been turned and be more than happy to turn you in.
	So in terms of the skepticism, it is increasing thanks to foreign information.
	When they're being told that Kim Jong Un could drive a car at the age of four, how is his feet going to reach the pedals, right?
	It doesn't make sense on its face.
	But again, they know enough to smile and nod.
	And again, North Korea also is a very age-driven country, like many Eastern countries, right?
	You respect your elders, you know, it's a function of age, it means wisdom and all these other things, multi-generational.
	Kim Jong-un is a kid, so even that is very odd for them.
	And that's why he dresses in such a retro way.
	His haircut is a throwback to his grandfather, the great leader Kim Il-sung, who was the founder of North Korea, trying to emulate him as much as possible, at least visually, to give him the message that, you know, this is a continuation instead of some, you know, totally new thing.
	How realistic is Trump's belief that he can get a manageable deal with North Korea?
	I think it's very realistic.
	I think they are explicitly in conflict because they're very, very poor.
	So the reason I was able to go to North Korea is because they produce nothing of value.
	And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were no longer receiving payments in kind from the Soviet Union and from China.
	So now they are in desperate need of hard currency for international trade, and one of the ways to get that is, all right, let's bring in foreigners here and show them around, right?
	So they would be very hungry to have some sort of a deal, but of course, and as President Trump realizes, that deal, and this is why they'd be suspicious of a deal in their defense, that deal is going to have with a lot of strings attached, both in terms of human rights, transparency, and other things.
	During the 90s, When the famine hit, the UN, which is hardly some sort of Trumpian organization, left.
	Because North Korea wasn't allowing them to see what was going on, and wasn't allowing them to help them with the food.
	So, they would be eager for a deal, but at the same time, they're not dumb, and they know that if they denuclearize, look at Libya, and look at these other countries, if the American government was against any one of our viewers, and that American government said to you, turn over your guns, even though we've hated you for seven years, it'll be fine, You would be like, I don't know.
	I think I'll hold on to this for now.
	So our prior conflicts of overthrowing people has led to the inability to a certain degree to get a good deal done.
	Well, also the fact that the Korean War, which they call the Forgotten War here with good reason, was absolutely devastating to the entire Korean population.
	In the North, you had the North Korean army, but you also had Stalin's Russia and Mao's Chinese army.
	In the South, besides the South Korean forces, you had the UN and the United States.
	And when you have that one little country in between, it's the size of Pennsylvania approximately, and all these armies on top going back and forth, I mean, the countryside was leveled.
	I mean, the devastation was absolutely enormous.
	And this is very much still part of the entire Korean consciousness, but especially the North Korean consciousness where it's discussed incessantly.
	So there is a huge level of, wait a minute, these guys came here and tried to kill us all as they Why are we allowing them any kind of mechanism to try to finish the job that they started?
	So do you think, in terms of the presidential election upcoming, given all of this that's taking place, what do you think Trump's prospects are and what do you think the election will shake out as?
	And in particular, do you think Biden will be able to stay as the Democratic nominee going through this process?
	I am very intrigued.
	First of all, I'm very impressed with how the Democratic Party got Biden the nomination.
	He was in, what, fourth or fifth in Iowa, something like fifth or sixth in New Hampshire.
	So you're DOA, right?
	Any other candidate would have folded at that point.
	Then he wins South Carolina, sure, but every single poll had Bernie winning every state except for Minnesota, Klobuchar's home state, on Super Tuesday.
	And for that Monday, for Klobuchar and Buttigieg to fold and endorse him, and for all the Democratic voters to get the message within 24 hours and put Biden over the top, that was a very impressive feat of political engineering on behalf of the Democratic Party.
	It is tricky to try to get this carcass over the finish line because the man cannot finish a sentence.
	It is very unfortunate to see.
	I would encourage everyone to look back to 2012, not that long ago, when he was running against Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
	He had a debate against Paul Ryan.
	Paul Ryan's no dummy, no matter what you think of him personally.
	He's certainly not inarticulate.
	And Biden held his own.
	Now, there are even these debates where everyone else is trying to run out the clock because this is your chance as a candidate.
	You want to get a ding, ding, ding.
	You always hear the bell because they're going over.
	And Biden would stop himself and be like, oh, I'm out of time.
	Because he's not very good at being able to hold a thought together, which I think quite clearly is a sign of his advanced age.
	I can't imagine what that debate stage is going to look like with Biden against President Trump.
	He couldn't handle his own with Mika on MSNBC on Morning Joe when she was asking very basic questions about Tara Reid.
	And he just stopped and stared at her.
	It was something I couldn't, I've never seen a politician in front of a camera who wasn't desperate to run their mouths for an hour.
	This is something that is without historical precedent.
	I have no doubt about it.
	What do you think Trump's prospects are?
	I thought before the pandemic policy responses, they were very good.
	Now it's sort of we're in an uncharted territory.
	I think they're actually quite good.
	I think especially they're going to be good as because Biden has been invisible.
	They've had him in a bunker, right?
	He's been hidden.
	The focus has been exclusively on the coronavirus.
	November is what six months away, five and a half months away.
	That is that's even before there were the first votes and I was five and a half months away.
	That's how far away it is.
	You know what I mean?
	So I think if you see Kayleigh McEnany and the fact that President Trump realizes this is what's glorious.
	I'm so impressed.
	That he was tweeting out, I'm not running against Joe Biden.
	I'm running against the media.
	And to have that be portrayed correctly as the villains in the picture is very, very smart.
	And it's going to disarm what would have been one of Biden's biggest strengths, which is having the media portray themselves as objective and entirely slant their coverage in favor of the Democratic candidate or in favor of the Republican candidate of their choosing.
	So I think he's going to do quite well.
	And I think an example of this is Kavanaugh.
	The fact that when push came to shove, the right dug in their heels.
	They're like, no, no, no, we're not letting you guys get away with this.
	I went back and looked.
	The last time the Democrats nominated a senior citizen other than Hillary Clinton was James Buchanan in 1856.
	It doesn't happen.
	And it's very hard for me to imagine the enthusiasm for a Joe Biden that there would have been even for a first female president under Hillary Clinton.
	Obama, I mean, he was the second coming and so on and so forth.
	So it is if you look at 2012, There are lots of Republicans who are like, Oh God, Obama's the worst.
	I'm going to vote in anybody.
	And there's plenty of Democrats who are thinking, Oh God, Trump's the worst.
	I'm going to vote in anybody.
	But that does not win you an election.
	That just gets your people to the polls and everyone else sits at home.
	And if the Democrat people are sitting at home, Trump will win.
	Exactly.
	And on vote by mail can only save them so far.
	Thanks for being with us, Michael.
	You can find him at MichaelMalice.com.
	You can find him on Twitter.
	Great books, Dear Reader and The New Right.
	You can get from a wide range of sources.
	Is there any other place they should go, Michael, to find your work?
	Oh, no, no.
	Twitter is where I do my damage and I apologize to all the viewers in advance.
	Fantastic.
	Thanks for being with us.
	Thanks so much.
	Indeed, in terms of the media institutional, gated institutional narrative continues to fall apart in a wide range of places, including a new COVID-19 death dispute.
	The Colorado coroner admitted that the state had been mischaracterizing various deaths as COVID-19.
	Indeed, people out of Colorado admitting that they've overstated it by as much as 25% or more.
	In addition, there's increasing people on the political left questioning and challenging the institutional narrative concerning COVID-19, as this article is entitled, The Left-Wing Case Against Lockdown, citing George Orwell and the Orwellian response and reaction so many public officials have taken in response to the pandemic as dissent and civil disobedience continues to grow.
	Meanwhile, the New York Times is even admitting hospitals knew how to make money, then coronavirus happened.
	Well, what really happened is then the lockdown happened.
	The New York Times threw out all their pieces.
	I read the Sunday New York Times used to do that as a habit.
	If you go through them, they often blame COVID-19 for what the lockdown did.
	What the lockdown did is help sink hospitals all across the country, with more and more rural hospitals talking about closing for good, and excess deaths accumulating due to the lockdown, not due to COVID-19.
	Meanwhile, Israel is already returning their kids to school, as other countries in Europe have done, so why aren't we doing it here in the United States?
	In the same context, there has been another series of documentaries being produced by the Corbett Report, and we're going to break that down again tonight.
	As it goes into detail, there's really one person responsible for the policy shift, the political policy shift in the pandemic world, what led all of a sudden the UK to radically shift its position, what led the United States to radically shift its position, what led most of the Western health authorities to radically shift their direction.
	It was due to the monopolistic philanthropy of one Bill Gates.
	In further reporting, the Corbett Report has been detailing the details of the aspects of Bill Gates' objective and agenda.
	And it's not an objective and agenda that has been democratically approved, nor is it one that many would democratically approve if they knew what its true meaning was.
	Let's start with showing part of that documentary, clip number one.
	Hello, everyone.
	Mr. P!
	What's your secret mission about?
	It's not my mission, but an idea that came from my good friend, Mr. Bill Gates.
	Hi, kids.
	The real, actual, in-person Bill?
	Bill?
	He's trying to say that we're big fans, Mr. Gates.
	It's a strange fact that Bill Gates' hagiographers, PR hacks employed more often than not by large corporations that receive funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, consistently depict this drab software developer as a cartoon superhero using his superpower of being very rich to help save the planet.
	Behind closed doors on this New York campus, a secret gathering of some of the world's most powerful people.
	Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg, Winfrey.
	It was like, well, it was like... The Super Friends.
	In the great hall of the Justice League, there are assembled the world's four greatest heroes.
	But these cartoon-fueled puff pieces reveal more than they know about Gates and the other mega-rich philanthropists they are attempting to idolize.
	They revealed that the idea of the selfless billionaire do-gooder is a work of fiction so unbelievable it is only fit for Saturday morning cartoon fare.
	As we have seen in our first two explorations of Bill Gates' role as global health kingpin, the seemingly selfless generosity of the Gates family through their eponymous foundation has in fact greatly increased their own wealth, with Bill Gates' personal net worth having doubled in the past decade alone.
	But the takeover of public health that we have documented in How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health, and the remarkably brazen push to vaccinate everyone on the planet that we have documented in Bill Gates' Plan to Vaccinate the World, was not, at base, about money.
	The unimaginable wealth that Gates has accrued is now being used to purchase something much more useful.
	Control.
	Control not just of the global health bodies that can coordinate a worldwide vaccination program, or the governments that will mandate such an unprecedented campaign, but control over the global population itself.
	This is an exploration of Bill Gates and the population control grid.
	You're tuned into The Corbett Report.
	From a journalistic standpoint, Good Morning America's inane report on the secretive billionaire meeting that took place in New York in 2009 was a failure. - Yeah.
	It listed some of the meeting's attendees and their combined net worth.
	Gates, Buffett, Bloomberg, Winfrey, together with others at the meeting, including George Soros, Ted Turner, David Rockefeller, they're worth more than $125 billion.
	It turned to the senior editor of Forbes for a soundbite about what it would be like to witness such an assembly of wealth.
	To have been in the room and see this meeting of the minds really would have been a fascinating thing.
	And it dutifully reported the participants' own stated reason for holding the meeting.
	That much money, that much power around one table.
	It begs the question, what were they doing?
	What were they scheming?
	Total world domination?
	This group, together for six hours, was talking about charity, education, emergency relief, global health.
	Before wrapping up with another juvenile appeal to comic book superhero lore.
	The new Superman and Wonder Woman.
	The super rich friends.
	Not fighting bad guys, but fighting for good nonetheless.
	For Good Morning America, John Berman, ABC News.
	Yes, from a journalistic standpoint, Berman's report was an utter failure.
	There was no attempt to question the participants about the meeting.
	No space for any criticism of these billionaires or questions about their motives.
	No adversarial journalism of any kind.
	But as a PR piece, it was brilliant.
	It leaves the viewer with a vague sense that some kind of gathering took place somewhere in New York in which rich people, who, let's not forget, are superheroes, talked about charity.
	One would have to turn to print sources to discover that the meeting was held at the personal residence of Sir Paul Nurse, then president of Rockefeller University, that the invitation to the gathering was co-written by Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and David Rockefeller, Or that the aim of the meeting was to consider how their wealth could be used to slow the growth of the world's population.
	Given that these extraordinarily rich and powerful men, including Warren Buffett, David Rockefeller and Ted Turner, have all expressed their belief that the growing human population is the greatest threat faced by humanity, it should not be surprising that they would convene a conference to discuss how best to channel their vast wealth into the project of reducing the number of people on the planet.
	Particularly unsurprising is that attendees of the meeting later dubbed Bill Gates, a man for whom population control is particularly close to his heart, as the most impressive speaker at the event.
	Here we can see a chart that looks at the total world population over the last several hundred years.
	And at first glance, this is a bit scary.
	We go from less than a billion in 1800 and then three, four, five, six and 7.4 billion where we are today is happening even faster.
	So Melinda and I wondered whether providing new medicines and keeping children alive, would that create more of a population problem?
	and And what the developing world does not need is more children.
	And I think that was the biggest Aha to Bill and me when we got into this work, as we asked ourselves of course the same hard-nosed question you'd ask, which is, if you get into this work and you start to save these children, will women just keep overpopulating the world?
	And thank goodness the converse is absolutely true!
	This is a very important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me.
	When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health.
	That was the main thing we did because I thought, you know, population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face.
	You've got to help mothers who want to limit family size have the tools and education to do that.
	That's the only thing that really counts.
	In recent years, critics have pointed to Bill Gates' own words linking vaccination programs with his goal of reducing population growth.
	The world today has 6.8 billion people.
	That's headed up to about 9 billion.
	Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.
	$10 billion over the next 10 years to make it the year of the vaccines.
	What does that mean exactly?
	Well, over this decade, we believe unbelievable progress can be made, both inventing new vaccines and making sure they get out to all the children who need them.
	We could cut the number of children who die every year from about 9 million to half of that if we have success on it.
	And the benefits there in terms of reducing sickness, reducing the population growth, it really allows a society a chance to take care of itself once you've made that intervention.
	But as any number of fact-checking websites, not to mention Bill Gates himself, are quick to point out, this doesn't mean what it sounds like it means.
	What we found out is that as health improves, families choose to have less children.
	The truth is that when people's lives improve, when children survive, for instance, or when girls go to school, people start making decisions based on the expectation that their children will live and thrive.
	The result is smaller families and slower population growth.
	I came across articles that showed that the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health.
	And that sounds paradoxical.
	You think, okay, better health means more kids, not less kids.
	Well, in fact, What parents are doing is they're trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them.
	And so the more disease burden that there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability.
	So there's a perfect correlation that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down.
	Yes, the Gates stated plan is to reduce population growth by improving health.
	But the idea of using vaccines as sterilization agents, even without the public's knowledge or consent, is not conspiracy lore, but documentable fact.
	In its 1968 annual report, the Rockefeller Foundation addressed the problems of population, lamenting that very little work is in progress on immunological methods, such as vaccines, to reduce fertility, and much more research is required if a solution is to be found here.
	The Foundation vowed to correct this problem by funding established and beginning investigators to turn their attention to aspects of research in reproductive biology that have implications for human fertility and its control.
	This was no empty promise.
	By the time of its 1988 annual report, the Rockefeller Foundation was able to report progress on its funding into contraceptive research, including Norplant, a contraceptive implanted under the skin of a woman's upper arm and effective for five years.
	In its 1988 report, the Rockefeller Foundation was pleased to announce that Norplant, which was developed by the Rockefeller-founded Population Council, was now approved for marketing in 12 countries.
	The Rockefeller's Population Council and other research organizations joined with the World Health Organization in 1972 to create a task force on vaccines for fertility regulation.
	By 1995, they were able to report progress in developing a prototype of an anti-HCG vaccine, which works by combining an immunogen formed from a synthetic peptide of human chorionic gonadotrophin, HCG, a hormone secreted by the surface of the early embryo to remain implanted in the womb, with a toxoid carrier molecule.
	The vaccine stimulates an immune reaction, causing women to develop antibodies against the hormone, thus preventing them from carrying babies to term.
	But beginning in the 1990s, a series of scandals over WHO-led vaccination programs in the third world led to allegations that tetanus vaccines in places like the Philippines and Kenya were being laced with HCG in order to implement population control by stealth.
	The controversy generated by these stories led global institutions to step back from the campaign to champion population control by vaccine.
	Dee, when we'll come back after the break, we'll get into the latter part of the Corbett Report and more information of how the context of historically when we've done this before.
	We also ask you to support our sponsor, InfoWarsStore.com, where you can get a range of products that are good for you and your health.
	You can get healthier, wealthier, and wiser by supporting platforms like this, by supporting the store and buying the products that are discounted and accessible and affordable to you.
	So come back after the break.
	We'll break down the rest of Bill Gates.
	Welcome back to American Countdown.
	There is a historical context for what is being discussed and related to Bill Gates and others desire to use this pandemic as a pretext to basically globally chip everybody, chip everybody for digital certification purposes to show what their vaccines are, potential digital chip purposes for actually delivery of the vaccine itself.
	And even going to a cashless society where a digital chip could be your means of monetary capability would lead to a Chinese social credit system en masse for the world or create that capacity within government.
	Bill Gates has had a long relationship to the development of creating national digital identification forms using biometric technology in India.
	There's also a wide range of other aspects to that.
	So in that context, it's good to historically remember this obsession with overpopulation last gave us eugenics and the sterilization movement in the United States.
	Indeed, the famous case that went up to the U.S.
	Supreme Court, where Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes greenlit that sterilization campaign that led to forced sterilizations of at least 70,000 Americans who were deprived of the ability to have their own children.
	Many of them sterilized as teenagers.
	Many of them sterilized in confined circumstances.
	Many of them sterilized based on fake hearings.
	Indeed, the whole case that went up to the Supreme Court was itself fixed.
	The person bringing suit wasn't allowed a meaningful independent representation.
	Indeed, what happened is the doctor who had been doing the four sterilizations got caught doing it illegally, was sued in a separate case, and so in order to get out of that case and every other case, Basically engineered a fake case.
	A case in which the lawyer representing the plaintiff suing was in fact friends and ideological allies with the defense lawyers and the people being sued.
	Indeed the experts used were experts that all favored sterilization.
	So it was a fixed case where no real arguments were made on behalf of the real plaintiff in the case.
	And it led to the engineered outcome.
	This has happened in multiple contexts in American legal history.
	Cases look like a real case that are in fact a fake case intended to create a particular judicial precedent that the politically protected classes can use to immunize their illicit conduct.
	That's what happened in that case.
	One of the examples of what was happening in that case arose from the Lynchburg experiment, where mass force sterilization was taking place on teenagers.
	A PBS documentary interviewed people back in the day when they were meaningfully covering this issue.
	They've mostly abandoned it these days.
	And let's show a clip of a woman who was a victim of that sterilization process.
	Let's take a look at video clip number six.
	Punishments at Lynchburg were severe.
	One of the most frequent was the blind room.
	Tiny cells where inmates were placed in solitary confinement for up to 90 days.
	Their heads were shaved, and they were made to wear a hospital gown.
	The cells contained nothing except a mattress and a bucket.
	I didn't like it there, and I ran from there.
	And, uh... When I come back, they put me in this blind room.
	Put me in there, and I stayed in there for a while.
	And they'd get somebody with me, or another patient with me, you know, and put them out in the blind room with me.
	Make him stay in there with me, and I was scared of death.
	There's no case.
	And I thought it was not now one day.
	I'm not calling no name.
	And I saw this person, I'm going to say person, I think it's them better, beat this patient, you know, didn't have too much mind, put her in a straitjacket and all, and twist her arms behind her.
	And they used to carry these real heavy keys, you know, on the side of the pocket, and took it, and was beating this patient with it.
	And next morning when I got up, The patient was dead.
	And, uh, I asked a certain woman, I said, uh, what happened to her?
	She said, well, she's deceased.
	But I think she really, you know, beat her dead with the keys.
	And I was scared to say anything about it.
	Because if I said anything about it, I'd get the same thing that the patient did.
	That was the worst part, I guess.
	They asked me, Do you know what this meeting is for?
	I said, no, sir, I don't.
	They said, well, this is a meeting that you go through when you have to have a serious operation, and it's for your health.
	That's the way they explained it to me.
	And I said, well, if it's for my health then, I guess I'll go through it.
	See, I didn't know all this for 16 years.
	In 1958, I still remember 1958, And then when I married, he come, come got me out and married me.
	I reckon that was the best part of my life.
	And, uh, him and I got married.
	And I told him all that in my life, you know, I told him that I hadn't been sterilized, I was gonna have no child.
	But at the time, he said, it didn't make no difference, you know, if I didn't have a child or not, he loved me like I was.
	So we was married about, um, I'd say ten years, I had ten years of good marriage.
	And then he decided he wanted to get divorced.
	I figured me being sterilized and all that was, you know, was cause our marriage being broke up like that.
	Cause he loved Johnnie and all that.
	He loved kids.
	And I used to lay in my bed and cry cause I couldn't give him no, give him what he wanted.
	I wanted to give him a son to bury his name.
	Cause most men, they want, you know, want a son to bury his name.
	And uh, I cried.
	He said, well, don't worry about it, honey.
	Everything's gonna be all right.
	But then as years go by, he, I don't know, he began to change his mind.
	So, he got divorced and married somebody else.
	That's the end of that story now.
	Indeed, that is the end of that story.
	And many of those people never received any economic relief or public justice at all.
	The people who pushed that sterilization campaign in the name of eugenics did so in the name of public health.
	They did so with the backing of the white lab coats and the politicians in the suits and the judges and justices in their black robes, who visited extraordinary harm on people like that, sterilizing her at the age of 11, ruining and wrecking aspects of her life in ways that could never be remedied again.
	And now we have politicians and public health officials pushing another rush strategy of rushing out a vaccine, a vaccine that comes from people who obsess over overpopulation.
	Can we trust them in any better way than we could have trusted those people a century ago?
	We know what the outcome was then.
	Why do we have any more confidence it will be different this time when many of them voice the same ideas and use the same language and lingo to try to accommodate and accomplish their ends and objectives?
	Indeed, if we look at the Rockefeller Foundation has issued its report of a national COVID-19 action plan.
	And what does it say in its key part of its plan?
	Well, step one is to launch a plan to dramatically expand testing.
	And not only that, we're going to have to do testing and tracing.
	And we're going to have to create a COVID-19 data commons and digital platform to accomplish and achieve these objectives.
	And they go through how this will have to be done before the economy can reopen or civil society can be restored.
	They have articulated similar objectives of different kinds before in their scenarios for the future of technology and international development, where they talk about different ways to effectively use technology to monitor people, track people, to have more control over them over time.
	This has been an objective that, as the documentary detailed, goes all the way back to the 1960s in its formal articulation by the Rockefeller Foundation, but has longer antecedent roots ideologically and intellectually back to the eugenics movement of the early part of the 20th century.
	Indeed, let's go back to an aspect of the documentary that goes into some of those aspects.
	Let's take up where we left off in clip number one.
	You heard me talk earlier about Sadie, who I met in Niger.
	2012, at which the foundation announced their support for funding the research, development, and deployment of injectable contraceptives to the developing world.
	You heard me talk earlier about Sadie, who I met in Niger.
	She was traveling 15 kilometers to get an injection.
	But let's ask ourselves, what if she didn't have to travel to that clinic?
	If we put it in her perspective, how can we keep her in her village to get the contraceptive she wants?
	Well, Pfizer is testing a new form of Depo, the injection that she goes 15 kilometers to get.
	They're now putting it in a new form, a new device that can be given.
	It's very, very small.
	It's called Uniject.
	I think it's going to be pictured here.
	It's a high-quality product.
	It's effective.
	It's safe.
	It's tiny, as you can see.
	And it can be put in a health care worker's kit to give to the woman at the village level.
	So Sadie won't have to go 15 kilometers any longer to get that injection.
	But the Gates were not content to stop there.
	In 2014, it was announced that Microchips Biotech, Inc., a company in Lexington, Massachusetts, had developed a new form of birth control, a wireless implant that can be turned on and off with a remote control and that is designed to last up to 16 years.
	According to MIT Technology Review, the idea originated when Bill Gates visited Robert Langer's MIT lab in 2012 and asked him if it would be possible to create an implantable birth control device that could be turned on or off remotely.
	Langer referred Gates to the controlled-release microchip technology he had invented and licensed to Microchips Biotechnology, and the Gates Foundation granted $20 million to the firm to develop the implants.
	Reducing population growth has, by Gates' own admission, been a core mission of the Gates Foundation since its inception.
	But in order to really understand what Gates means by population control, we have to look beyond the concept of controlling population size.
	At its most fundamental level, the population control the Gates speaks of is not birth control, but control of the population itself.
	In order to understand the broader population control agenda and how it ties into the Gates Foundation's plans, we have to look at a puzzling development that took place in 2017.
	In that year, GAVI, the Gates-founded and funded alliance that partners the Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, and the World Bank with vaccine manufacturers to help ensure healthy markets for vaccines, took a strange pivot away from its core mission of vaccinating every child on the planet to providing every child with a digital biometric identity.
	The idea was first floated by Gavi CEO Seth Berkeley in a Nature article that year, Immunization Needs a Technology Boost, where he states that the goal of 100% immunization will not be reached without secure digital identification systems that can store a child's medical history.
	He then gives a specific example.
	We are working with a company in India called Khushi Baby, which creates off-grid digital health records.
	A necklace worn by infants contains a unique identification number on a short-range communication chip.
	Community health workers can scan the chip using a mobile phone, enabling them to update a child's digital record even in remote areas with little phone coverage.
	This sudden interest in digital identity was no mere passing fancy for the Vaccine Alliance.
	Gavi doubled down by becoming a founding member of the ID2020 Alliance, a public-private partnership dedicated to spearheading a global digital biometric identity standard.
	Other founding members of the Alliance include Gates First Company, Microsoft, and the Rockefeller Foundation.
	In 2018, Gavi issued a call for innovation in digital technologies for finding, identifying, and registering the most vulnerable children.
	The call specifically requested technologies for capturing, storing, and enrolling the biometric details of infants on rugged biometric devices.
	Berkeley continued to follow up on this idea in public engagements as one of the new core missions of GAVI.
	What's interesting is that people tend to think of, you know, birth certificates as kind of a major document.
	But, you know, the most common, as I mentioned before, is not a birth certificate, is not a death certificate, is not a marriage certificate.
	The most common connection, vital registration for the population, is actually a child health card.
	We reach more than 90% of children with at least one dose of vaccine as part of routine.
	So they're in the system.
	The challenge is that contact is not connected into the system.
	So if you could connect it, then you have the ability to give them their basic identity papers.
	You have ability then later on, if they want to own land or they want to have their rights, you're able to help them with that.
	But, you know, we're not currently taking advantage of that.
	And so the children get seen, they get enrolled in the health centers, but that information is not used for anything else.
	So did you hear that?
	Where he's talking about is he's talking about in order to get your housing, in order to get banking access, in order to get land, you're gonna have to have a chip to do it.
	So he's acting like he's affording an opportunity.
	But that opportunity doesn't require a chip.
	He's saying in the future, we're going to require this as a condition of being able to own land.
	A requirement is a condition of being able to travel.
	Require this as a condition of being able to bank.
	Require this as a condition of public participation in public life.
	Require this as a condition of medical care.
	Consider testing and tracing as a first step along that path, whereby you begin to do massive surveillance.
	As we heard from Michael Malice, the critical thing that upholds the North Koreans totalitarian oppressive culture and government is surveillance.
	Same thing is true of communist China.
	Same thing is true in Cuba.
	They rely upon constant surveillance, a panopticon of this pandemic, under the guise of this pandemic, being used to spy on you constantly, continuously, forevermore, like a big eye in the sky.
	And that is the sort of mindset and mentality that they're openly talking about.
	They'll often disguise the language, disguise the rhetoric as, oh, this is an opportunity we're going to afford you.
	Ask yourself while someone who is obsessed with overpopulation is saying his great goal in life is to provide free health care to as many poor people in the world.
	Does that necessarily make sense?
	Or is there an ulterior objective present?
	An objective that has not been democratically approved and that is anti-humanitarian in its approach.
	There you have prominent people connected to Bill Gates' agenda saying that this chip is going to be the predicate by which you can engage in civil society at all.
	Let's go back to the documentary.
	The University of Pittsburgh is where the polio vaccine was first discovered.
	At the medical center, researchers are now developing a vaccine that is delivered using a dissolvable patch called a microneedle array.
	Think about them as almost like a band-aid.
	And so the microneedle array is simply applied to the skin topically, pressed into place very shortly, and then taken off and thrown away.
	And then the antigen is already delivered.
	As is becoming evident, this new vaccine-delivered barcode-like tattoo is about much more than simply ensuring that children get all their Gavi-recommended immunizations.
	On a recent Ask Me Anything thread on Reddit, when asked, what changes are we going to have to make to how businesses operate to maintain our economy while providing social distancing, Bill Gates answered, Eventually we will have some digital certificates to show who has recovered or been tested recently, or when we have a vaccine, who has received it.
	In his answer, Gates fails to mention that he has himself been instrumental in kick-starting and funding the research into the very type of digital certificates for vaccination that he is speaking about, or that these digital certificates, likely, at first, to be a digital marker linked to a biometric ID, at first, to be a digital marker linked to a biometric ID, could very well one day take the form of vaccine-implanted quantum Thank you.
	But, as in so many other aspects of the unfolding crisis, Gates' unscientific pronouncement that we will need digital certificates to prove our immunity in the new normal of the post-coronavirus world... Eventually, what we'll have to have is certificates of who's a recovered person, who's a vaccinated person.
	...is now being implemented by a number of governments.
	It is now being reported that OnFido, a tech startup specializing in AI-based biometric ID verification, is in talks with the British government to provide the type of digital certification Gates mentioned, dubbed an immunity passport.
	The proposed system would require would-be workers to use the OnFido provided app to scan their face or other biometric data, link that information to a SARS-CoV-2 antibody test, or, eventually, proof of coronavirus vaccination, and then have their picture taken and immunity verified every time they wish to access a restricted space or work environment.
	Last month, OnFido announced that it had raised $50 million in a round of investments led by Bill Gates' old company, Microsoft.
	But this is not Gates's first experience with the field of biometric identity.
	A decade ago, the government of India began what has been called the largest social experiment on earth, enrolling over 1 billion people in the largest biometric identification database ever constructed.
	The project, involving iris scanning and fingerprinting the entirety of the Indian population, recording their biometric details in a centralized database, and issuing them a 12-digit identity number that could be used to prove residence and access government services, all within the span of a few years, presented an incredible societal, legal, and technological challenge.
	It's no surprise, then, that the person who was brought in as the chief architect of the Adhar project when it was launched, Nandan Nilakani, co-founder of Indian multinational Infosys, is also a long-time friend of Bill Gates and a partner with Bill & Melinda Gates on a philanthropic venture called Co-Impact, which supports initiatives to address major social challenges at scale.
	Nilakani's involvement in Adhar has even made him one of Gates's heroes, featured in slick video promotions produced by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
	Indeed, in fact, as you dig in, you will find this repeatedly, that key actors and public health roles all around the world, in this digital control world, in this digital chip world, come back to Bill Gates, Bill Gates' money, Bill Gates' foundation, Bill Gates' role.
	He is the guy that unites Imperial College with the IHME out of the University of Washington, with Fauci and Birx at the CDC and here in the United States.
	He's the one that ties all of them together.
	He's the one that ties together the reversal of public policy.
	He's also been talking about this now for decades.
	His experimentation and using vaccines.
	Allegations that he laced those vaccines with sterilization products in Kenya by the Kenyan Catholic Church officials there.
	Allegations against him in India that he was killing people because of his misuse and abuse of vaccines.
	His demand now that vaccines and everybody connected to COVID-19 be given immunity, but particularly vaccine makers around the world.
	Why do you need immunity if, in fact, there's nothing wrong that you're doing?
	Imagine if I came to you and said, look, we're going to give this guy complete immunity from any crimes he's ever committed in the past and any crimes he may commit in the future, but it's not because he's ever committed any crimes and it's not because he ever will.
	Why then exactly does he need a complete blank slate immunity?
	Yet that is precisely what we've already given a lot of vaccine makers in the United States since the mid-1980s.
	Indeed, after the last flu pandemic-driven, panic-driven vaccine was such a debacle, the swine flu vaccine pandemic of 1976, which led to rushing a vaccine into the public marketplace, led to far more deaths and neurological harm than the virus ever did, And that led to a bunch of lawsuits that forced them to settle it.
	Not long thereafter, in the early 1980s, that led to a movement to immunize vaccine makers from everything they ever do, including their creation, distribution, how it's distributed, who is produced by, how it's manufactured, how it's sent from one location to the next, how it's given vaccine, everybody along the entire vaccine supply chain.
	Was given an extraordinary level of immunity that is unparalleled and unprecedented in American legal history for a private enterprise.
	And to this day, the only place you can get for relief is a special vaccine court.
	It's not a real court.
	It's not an Article 3 judicial system.
	It's not a system that is protected by constitutional provisions in any adequate manner.
	It is not a provision that you ever have a jury trial right.
	And even then, with all those limited constrictions on remedies and rights, In just the last two decades, the U.S.
	government has had to write more than $3 billion in checks to people that have been injured by vaccines that are supposedly completely safe.
	Just because there are many vaccines that may be completely safe or largely safe and produce far more benefit than harm does not mean every vaccine is.
	And yet that is what has become the vaccine industry logic.
	It has become that you can't challenge, all you have to do is take a drug, put the label vaccine on it, and magically and mystically, it's supposed to be completely immune from public policy criticism.
	Just as it is legally immune from any damage.
	Does that really make sense?
	And isn't that really what the objective and agenda is here?
	Especially if we contrast it to what Daniel Horowitz has called the biggest lie in the COVID-19 context.
	If we look at the chart, when they look at who actually gets sick, what's the risk of hospitalization, what's the risk of death?
	We see for people under 30, 0.3% risk of even going into an ICU, even lower rate of death.
	The same with people between 30 and 40.
	It only gets at any higher level when you're over 60.
	And for people under 60, less risk than, in fact, a viral flu.
	So what we have is a Bill Gates-driven agenda, where he met in secret with a bunch of people, including powerful, influential folks.
	Why was the meeting in secret if it's just charity?
	Who needs to have a secret meeting to just do public health?
	Unless the objective is something other than what it's being pitched as.
	Something other than what it's being promoted as.
	A Bill Gates world is not an American-driven world.
	A Bill Gates world is a world driven by technocrats who are dictating policy and politics to the rest of us in an anti-democratic manner, and they're using this pandemic as the political pretext to push their anti-democratic, anti-human agenda.
	We shouldn't go along.

▲